According to news reports from mr. Houthu of the hulu district, who lives in da qing city, heilongjiang province, on 21 june, a 4. 2 square metre toilet in the home was filled with leaks and charged $15. 5 million by two door-to-door maintenance workers and 62. 5 kg of glue, which continued to leak after maintenance。
There's no sign of two plastic drums
Mr. Hoo stated that he had asked for the price before the repairs and that the other party had indicated that the toilet was small and “not much to use”。
Mr. Ho has only one of the maintenance staff's mobile phone numbers, which are not known about his identity and are difficult to defend。
The market supervisory authority of the hollu district replied that the two maintenance staff members were personal leak detection operations, with no business owners and no door shop, and were part of the individual's sporadic labour service. The reply found that the dispute between the parties did not fall within the statutory mediation of the market supervision authority and therefore did not allow for administrative mediation。
The local police say it belongs toCivil disputesIn the case, “the caller was informed of the court proceedings”. In addition, the matter is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the public security organs, which are not in a position to assist mr. Zhou in obtaining information on the identity of the maintenance personnel。
On 28 july, press calls were made to the maintenance staff, who hung up and took away journalists。
Public reports indicate that the “failure-free” formula is common, and that groups have been sentenced for violating criminal law。
The bathroom water repairer said it was not much, and it cost 155,000
Mr. Hoo, age 62, lives in huadu, sibing street, hulu district, where the toilet has been leaking water for a long time。
On 21 june, he saw a note in the press box on the first floor of the unit building with “all kinds of patches” and a cell phone number. That afternoon, he called. At about 1940 hours, two maintenance workers arrived at the door。
Mr. Hoo told the news that he had been tested through the device and told him that the bathroom was leakproof and that he could punch the tile into the inside and glue it. He asked about the price and said that the toilet was small and “not much”。
Mr. Hoo's bathroom is 4. 2 m2. The photographs provided show a block of 30 centimetres and a wide area of seven bricks。
The maintenance video showed two maintenance personnel not wearing work clothes and two plastic drums in the bathroom without any marking. A small hole was struck in the ground tiles, and a machine was connected by a hose that injected glue into a small hole。
According to mr. Hout, the plastic drums described above were drums filled with glue, with no information on the brand, date of production, etc。
At 23 p. M. That evening, mr. Zhou described the injection of 62. 5 kg of glue by repair workers at a cost of $15,000, plus a total fee of $155,000 for tests and tools. The maintenance staff also stated that the glue was imported by germany and that the two barrels were of different kinds and used in combination. "calculate the punch glue is $240 per kilogram." mr. Hoo said。
That night, mr. Hoo made two payments, $6,000 and $9,500, respectively, through the 2-dimensional code of micro-intelligence, totalling $15,500。
According to mr. Hoo, the maintenance staff, while on their way, indicated that the bathroom would not be used until a week later. However, one week later, mr. Hout realized that the leak had not been resolved, “it was still leaking, and it was nothing different than before, and nothing worked”
On 28 july, press calls were made to the maintenance staff, who indicated that 62. 5 pounds of waterproofing glue did not exist, and then hung up the telephone and took away the journalist. On 5 august, journalists renewed their cell phone numbers and sent messages without reply。
There's a lot of "no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no."
After paying, mr. Hoo felt he had fallen into a trap. On 25 june, mr. Hout applied for judicial mediation through the centre for integrated management in the huru district. The maintenance staff, however, did not arrive as agreed, did not answer the telephone and mediation was not possible。
On 28 june, mr. Zhou called with his family to report to the police at 110, and the police officer at the ronnan branch of the dynasty city public security bureau concluded that the matter “is not within the jurisdiction of the public security organs and recommends that it be referred to the competent authorities”. The reason for this is that “the other party has completed the waterproofing of the toilet, there is no fiction or concealment of the truth, it is a civil dispute case, and the police have been informed of the proceedings before the court”。
On 28 june, the police responded to the police
On 13 july, mr. Khoo carried out an online mail visit, which was transferred to the market supervision authority of the holu district. On 20 july, the board replied that it had verified the situation with staff providing leak detection services, that the two personnel were individual leak detection operations, that there was no business owner, no door shop, and that there were individual casual services. The reply found that the dispute between the parties did not fall within the statutory mediation of the market supervision authority and therefore did not allow for administrative mediation。
Several calls were made to the district market supervisory authority, which was published by the network of officials of the people's government in the holu district, and was not heard。
Mr. Hoo has only the number of one maintenance officer and does not know the identity of the other。
On 4 august, members of the ronnan branch of the dynasty city public security directorate received a press briefing from police officers. As a result, the matter fell outside the jurisdiction of the public security organs, which were unable to help mr. Qiu to search for information on the identity of the maintenance staff。
How can mr. Hoo defend his rights? Can he be prosecuted through the courts? In beijing, counsel for the sino-gin (zhengzhou) law firm, roh xiaotan, stated that the de facto contractual relationship between mr. Hao and the maintenance worker, which was still leaking after maintenance, constituted a breach of the agreement and a breach of articles 577 and 582 of the civil code. At the same time, the maintenance workers promised in advance that they would “not spend much”, collect $155,000 later and use the name “rainstorm waterproofing” to collect moneyFalse propagandaThe provisions of articles 8 and 20 of the consumer protection act on the right to information and genuine publicity have been violated。
In the view of mr. Hao, the substantive conditions for the indictment are in place, but attention needs to be paid to securing evidence and identifying the accused. The mobile phone number alone is not sufficient to meet the requirements for prosecution under article 122 of the code of civil procedure, “with a clear defendant”, and attention is to be paid to the identity information of the maintenance worker during the police, judicial mediation and, if necessary, to verify with the court against which the case is brought that an investigation order may be issued to check the registration of the mobile phone by the operator。
In the case of the rohchan analysis, the court found that there was a high probability of fraud or manifest unfairness if it could be proved that the maintenance worker had made a prior promise of a low price, that the actual fees were abnormally high or that the risk of losing the case was higher if the evidence was not sufficient and the price was not reasonable alone, and that the risk of losing the case was considered to have been freely agreed between the parties。
Public reports indicate that there are many “no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no”. Press searches have found that there are a number of consumers, many of them angry and helpless, who have been exposed to this pattern。
According to the china consumers newspaper, in may 2023, the consumer, ms. Wu, made an appointment through a web platform for a home inspection and maintenance service called “shin jiang de's water and leaking company”, with a high-pressure note of 106 pounds at $120 per pound and a discount of $120,000。
It was also reported that the chief of the east rainbow fu establishment, the chan weng army, had stated that blind injection was not desirable. According to it, the majority of the 106-pound glue referred to by ms. Wu may have been drained by the construction staff. The chinese army warned that regular water protection companies would generally test surveys, carry out construction programmes based on specific reasons for leakage, then make advance offers and enter into formal contracts。
Mr. Hoo said there's still water stains on the outside of the bathroom
Public reports indicate that there have also been groups involved in torture as a result of the “facility plug”。
From june to august 2022, li xiaoxiang, go chi and zhou to shanghai, impersonating a well-known brand-named company promoting glue-proof leak-proofing operations on a web-based short video platform, falsely claimed that the price of the glue, at a cost of $2. 50 per pound, was imported glue, at a price of $280 per pound, and informed of the lower total price, which was used to increase the volume of the glue by means of random injections and discharges into sewers in order to claim high-cost service costs and to force the victim to pay for it by means of verbal threats, detention, spitting, texting bombings, etc., if the victim was unwilling to pay. In the manner described above, the four accused provided the 14 victims with a drop-off service at a cost of nearly $230,000 and actually received more than $160,000 in just three months. Eventually, four persons were convicted of forced trading and sentenced to prison terms ranging from three years and three months to one year。
(news chirping)
